I'll move this over here for the keeper of the boards. If you care to reply, Tom, it looks as if you can do so on the Current Events board.

Regards the statue - how many Attorneys General have had their picture taken near that statue and not gotten uptight? How many Attorneys General have spent $8,000 of the taxpayers hard-earned money covering up that statue because the Attorney General is embarrassed by having his picture taken with "Justice" in the background?

That'll tell you he's one sick man. Given their recent record, he may not be considered nuts in Texas, where the norm seems to be a bit skewed.

Now, watch out for this one. If I can demonstrate the man is going out of his way and beyond his authority to impose his religious beliefs upon a large body of people in a matter which is beyond Federal (Justice Department, Attorney General) jurisdiction despite not one but two votes of those people, will you agree he's a schnook? Simple question.

Situation again. If I can demonstrate that:
the people voted on a matter not the province of the Federal Government:
Ashcroft disagrees with the vote based upon his religious beliefs:
Ashcroft tries to impose his beliefs upon those people:
This is not a constitutional issue - the votes were constitutional.

Would he be a man of the law, or of his narrow religious beliefs? How would he be different from officials of that other governing body, the Taliban, who used their governing authority to impose religious beliefs?
Should he be bombed, shot, or taken to Guantanamo?

That is if I can demonstrate the guy would do what I described.

Arf